One of the more vocal among them is blogger and UW Law School professor Ann Althouse, who has gone to great and terrible lengths to excuse the alleged behavior, attack the credibility of only the anonymous sources with whom she disagrees, suggest that no arrests (yet) mean no wrongdoing, impugn the honor of Justice Bradley, and cast doubt on the very justice system of this state.

What? Emily makes no effort to back up that characterization of me. My posts about the Wisconsin Supreme Court are all collected here. Any fair reader can see that I'm endeavoring to understand the stories that have appeared in the press, critiquing the press, and asking a lot of sensible questions. It's not even fair to call me a "Prosser supporter," let alone assert that I've "gone to great and terrible lengths" to "excuse... attack... [and] impugn" anybody.

Emily Mills' dishonest assertions about me seem to reflect her desperation, her need to believe what she wants to believe, her reflex to plug her ears and go la la la la la. I mean, look at what I actually said.

When Bill Lueders first dropped the allegation that Prosser choked Bradley, I merely noted it and said "Hmmm." My second post linked to the presentation of the story on the lefty blog Think Progress, which was about the ways to oust Prosser from the court. I corrected the blogger (Ian Millhiser) for calling Prosser an "accused criminal" instead of a "person accused of a crime" — which is a point anyone who cares about the rights of the accused ought to find important — and I observed that we lacked the full context. I speculated about who Lueders's sources were and who would have the motivation to go to the press. And, most devastating to Mills's embarrassing statement about me, I said:

But sure. If Justice Prosser committed a criminal attack on another Justice, he shouldn't be on the court, even if he only lashed out after weeks or years of merciless bullying.

In fact, if you search through my posts, you'll see that I've consistently said Prosser should resign if he choked Justice Bradley. I said:

I agree with Millhiser that if it's true Prosser reached a breaking point and started strangling Bradley, he should go. I doubt that's true, however, because there was no arrest. That's why we're getting the story in this unsourced, piecemeal form.

I'm struggling to figure out what went on. Yes, I do use the evidence of no arrest to suggest that Prosser didn't suddenly snap and launch into a strangling, but that doesn't mean I'm saying "no arrests (yet) mean no wrongdoing." It means — as anyone who reads that post with a calm, clear mind can see — that I'm guessing the situation was complex — and later reports confirm my guess.

That post is updated with a reference to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel report citing allegations that Bradley initiated the physical aggression — charging at Prosser with fists raised. Emily Mills deserves to have her own language turned back on her: She has gone to great and terrible lengths to excuse Bradley's alleged behavior and to impugn the honor of Justice Prosser and blah blah blah. It's so easy to be a hot-headed partisan. And so risky! Because you make it so easy for someone to show what you are.

My next post on the subject goes into more detail examining the new material in the Journal Sentinel article. That post, before updates, concludes:

I want to know not only what really happened at the time of the physical contact (if any) between the 2 justices, but also who gave the original story to the press. If Prosser really tried to choke a nonviolent Bradley, he should resign. But if the original account is a trumped-up charge intended to destroy Prosser and obstruct the democratic processes of government in Wisconsin, then whoever sent the report out in that form should be held responsible for what should be recognized as a truly evil attack.

I boldfaced another sentence for you, Emily. My first update includes the material that, I think, has touched off panic in the local ideologues:

Everyone who thinks Prosser must to resign if he attacked Bradley ought to say that if Bradley attacked Prosser, she should resign.

I was calling for even-handedness and consistency. And that, I think, was what was truly "terrible" to people like Emily Mills. After the burst of enthusiasm that came with Bill Lueders's hit piece on Prosser, there came the horrible realization that the dreaded conservative governor Scott Walker might end up with the power to name a replacement for one of the liberal justices. I pointed that out — in the context of critiquing the decision to give Lueders the ability to break the story the way he did. I was trying to analyze the reasoning and motivation of the Lueders's unnamed sources.

This led to my next piece, analyzing the political reasoning behind Lueders's attack. There, I noted how the Lueders piece inspired lefty bloggers to go all out attacking Prosser in ways that will now — after the Journal Sentinel piece — be used to leverage arguments against Bradley. I repeated my statement "if it's true Prosser reached a breaking point and started strangling Bradley, he should go." And I called for principled consistency (addressing the Think Progress blogger Millhiser):

All right, Mr. Millhiser, I appeal to you. Let's be unanimous about this and show that our political system has not broken down. I agreed with you that if Prosser did what Lueders's story made it seem that he did, Prosser should resign. By your own standard, will you say that if Bradley initiated the physical aggression, running at Prosser with raised fists, that the integrity of our political system demands that there be unanimous calls for Bradley to be removed?

This is what's so scary and what — I think — is making these partisan local columnists tear into me. I'm not a pro-Prosser blogger. I'm a law professor blogger, probing with questions about neutral principles, the actual facts, and political interests. Lueders lured lefties into making statements that are now quite inconvenient, and they don't know how to get out of the corner they've written themselves into. Don't lash out at me. That's childish.

I'm asking hard questions that demand thoughtful, careful answers. It's been my job for a quarter of a century as a law professor to frame questions like that. And I'm an expert at seeing when people don't want to answer the questions. Answer the questions, I plead with my students before they take my exams. You can only get credit for answering the questions.

In my next post, I deal with a comment that Lueders left on that previous post, trying to defend himself. I continue to critique him and demand precision about the various assertions and what constitutes spin. The post after that has a similar theme, trying to figure out who Lueders's sources were. Here's another short post, wondering about who had the motivation to go to Lueders.

And that's just about all Emily Mills could have read before lashing out at me. Now, it's possible that she didn't read anything I wrote, because after the paragraph of hers I quoted above, she says:

I won't go into why Althouse's arguments are wrong -- someone has already done a far, far better job of it than I ever could -- but her writings on the matter provide a fairly good overview of what so many Prosser supporters are now arguing.

She links to some blogger's long screed about me. Emily, that's quite a confession! That's a far, far better job than you could ever do? How dare you write about me the way you did without going through my writings yourself? Did you check that blogger's work? Are you adopting the poor reading and reasoning as your own? You call me on fairness and you write about me the way you did? Aren't you even afraid for yourself, that you will look like a stupid hack? Aren't you even afraid for your liberal cause, that you have lost the very credibility you will need to defend Justice Bradley (and the Chief Justice) as the facts unfold? You need to show that you are interested in the truth, in principle, and that you will deal with the evidence and the serious questions. Why would you be so careless? It smells like desperation and panic.

I have waited nearly a day to respond to Emily Mills's embarrassing attack on me. Yesterday, Meade went over there to participate in the comments. He wrote:

Shame on you, Emily. You assert and smear without so much as linking to her posts. You fail to cite the passages in which you claim she goes to "great and terrible lengths," "excuses," "attacks" credibility of sources (you happen to want to believe), "suggests," and "impugn[s]." You do this without linking or citing the specific words and sentences you want your readers to believe are objectionable. All because, what, because you say so?

Weak.

And then you dish off the dirty work of trying to substantiate your charges to a verbose blogger whose only argument in smearing Ann Althouse relies on the notion that Justice Bradley was in fact choked - a fact that is still in dispute.

I've seen you do better, Emily.

Although Mills responded within 2 hours to the previous commenter, she has not responded to Meade, and more than 13 hours have passed. I was hoping Meade's relatively gentle push-back would have been sufficient. I don't really like slamming a young writer who could do much better. Even when I have been attacked, I don't like it. Because I feel like a teacher. I'm not a political ideologue. I don't even care that much about politics. I care about truth and the ability of human beings to reason and to interact with each other.

And I generally choose not to draw attention to attacks on me. But the statement that Emily Mills made about me simply cannot be allowed to sit there festering on the website of a newspaper — Isthmus — that is widely read in my town.

It's too much like the attack from Bill Wineke that I felt I had to respond to yesterday. Both writers are attacking me as a law professor at the University of Wisconsin. I think they would like to destroy my reputation in this town, where they so casually assume the benefits of inclusion in what is a political majority here. I think they carelessly and lazily believe that local readers will eat up the sloppy attacks they're serving, because local readers agree with their political ends.

As they rush at me from across town shaking their balled-up fists in my face, I feel I must extend my fingers in self-defense, and type out an exposé of their shoddy work for a larger audience.

331 comments:

Kind of amazing, isn't it? They either won't actually read your words, or don't care what you actually said; because neither of those things fits what they want to push. And they'd rather be dishonest and partisan and corrupt than deal with all those nasty facts.

And they damn sure don't want people with a wide readership asking questions they don't want asked and pointing out things they don't want people knowing. Even when their actions trash their own reputation

Althouse, you’re not really this naïve are you? You’re just ACTING all “surprised”, right? If not, well, I’m sorry but you have made a horrendous mistake…”we’re” not interested in the Truth. “We’re” interested in VICTORY. I use “we’re” in the sense that Buffalo Springfield sing, “Signs saying ‘Hooray for our side.’” And we’re never quite sure who “our side” is…a generic “we” or “Us/our”.

In this case the “we” is the Left and their goal is Victory…the repeal of the Collective bargaining and the defeat of Walker and the Republicans. “we’re” not interested in anything but that. And the elections defeated us, the flea-bagging failed, the failure to publish failed, the law suit failed, and now we have left only, driving out Prosser and Recall Elections.

Prosser MUST go, and if you aren’t on-board, “If you are not with us, you are against us.”; then you must be defeated too! Or at least cowed. “we’re” not interested in the TRUTH, we’re interested in the “Narrative.” You are not going with the Narrative and hence, you too, must be given the Two Minute Hate.

The confusion occurred amidst other confusion over what occurred in the office of Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, and a review of how this story was reported, and then mis-defended by local law professor and conservative gadfly Ann Althouse, is an instructive look into conservative "thought" these days.

Why does Ann always think people should take anything Meade says seriously. He is a commenter on a blog. Are people supposed to automatically give him credibility because he is intelligent and writes a lot of comments on Ann's blog? He doesn't seem to have the credentials to be given any special attention.

Well, Ann, since your giving these creeps space on your blog by posting about them, they're gonna be showing up like flies.

The usual course to fame and fortune has been cut off for them.

What can they claim and post about? Algore returns their phone calls?

On the other hand, it is worth observing that they're bat shit crazy now, with hate! Their purpose is to cut you down to their size. And, as I've said, you're taking them and holding them up. So we can all see their lunacy, now.

This was not how it was supposed to end. Obama promised them success.

Heck, Abrahamson, STUNNED that Kloppenhoppen on her own couldn't "win." ... And, then they tried another way. At great cost to Wisconsin taxpayers. And, again, they couldn't win.

But now? Perhaps flush with Soror's cash they've attempted to use their strongest card! As their dying trees fall ... they swinging this way and that.

And, the only time they get SKIMMED is when they show up, here.

You could call this a wasted effort on their part.

Or, something less tame.

But winning?

These jerks are not winning!

Count those who have already lost their dignity:

Anthony Weiner

Shirley the loon Abrahamson

Bradley, a justice because the label on her door says so.

But there's no brains there.

They've been exposed.

And, they only continue to hurt themselves.

Prosser, a majority of people worldwide now know, didn't choke anybody. Abrhamson had reneged on a bargain she struck with her court.

Choking?

Wasn't Abrahamson hiding out? If there in fact had been a deal on a "date certain" on which the opinion would be published ... didn't she lie to her colleagues?

There are currently two investigations by two reluctant investigators.

For all we know it will just increase donut consumption.

On the other hand? Bradley's made false charges. Her charges aren't sticking up there. Will this anger the judicial committee? Do bears shit in the woods?

"I think they would like to destroy my reputation in this town, where they so casually assume the benefits of inclusion in what is a political majority here."

Exactly right. The progressives in Madison are all about diversity and inclusiveness - providing that everyone else thinks, writes and acts exactly as they think, write and act. Those who don't are to be destroyed.

Excellent graduate-level seminars in The Role Of An Editor this week, Althouse. Too bad there are no actual editors left in any of the Madison media, masthead titles notwithstanding.

The It is a Judeo-Christian tradition that the a judge is NOT to favor the home team over the righteous ones in a case. That Blind Justice issue is what Abrahamson, Bradley, and now Post have never respected. You have exposed them as a tribe of feminists defending the powers of great Chief Abrahamson. Power is never surrendered without a fight, so keep your head down.

What a hack's hack. I hope that all the drooling idiots over at the Isthmus realize that she makes them look even worse than they actually are. No quotes from Althouse, but a link to a simple-minded screed by an obvious dolt? Very nice, Emily. You are dishonest, spiteful and just plain stupid, but you were kind enough to wrap it all up in one article, so that's good. Very good girl, very good, you'll get your doggie treats today. Just go ask Abrahamson and Bradley, maybe they'll even take you for a walk!

I'm really thinking that I should stop making comments on this blog all together. AFG has made me realize that, sans credentials, nobody will give a damn about a word I write, snark or serious. I had thought that a discussion thread on a blog was a way for everyone, credentialed or not, to debate freely. Apparently I was wrong. Without credentials, is there any point?

I would ponder that last point, but I'm not sure I have the credentials to form abstract thoughts.

Make no mistake, they probably read all your words, but as we see every day, it's your refusal to swallow all the meme and add some fuel to it that makes you a target. You are either 100% with them or you are the enemy - pure partisan emotion. Your attempt to enlighten them will go nowhere. You can do nothing virtuous now, you hack.

Who wouldn't make the mistake of calling Emily Mills, Emily Post. Emily Post ws famous for telling ladies they couldn't go outside, and be considered dressed, if they didn't wear gloves and hats.

As to Emily's charge that "all the justices in Wisconsin have been tainted," she's actually onto something.

Given that other people have invested mightily in their careers to reach as high as being a judge. And, why would they want to be in the same class of people as Abrahamson? And, Bradley? They must be rending their garments this morning, they feel so bad at the loss that's occurred to their profession.

But ya know what?

Proves they're no longer in denial.

Should get interesting when a number of these now outraged judges get real angry.

Turns out, this may be the problem solver. You didn't think the fat chief policeman Tubbs was gonna do it, did ya?

Nor will the sheriff. Not from Dane County.

Perhaps, there will be, now, enough judges of good influence ... that they'll join forces ... and spell out to the incompetent investigators who've taken brooms to shove this under the rug ...

That there's a price to pay, after all?

You know how Hugo Black made the Klan pay, don't cha? You know when you set revenge in motion ... it's gonna be cold and sweet ... when the wronged person gets even.

In the law that means the People will get better decisions.

Abrahamson, however, can fight and spit as much as she wants to ... Her dignity is gone. She can't be trusted. And, the governor is a republican.

Tell Emily Mills even the russians learned how to read PRAVDA. And, tell Emily Mills she really looks ugly when she gets angry. That should do it.

Perhaps as a civil libertarian/thoughtful feminist, as someone perhaps actually conservative (conserve what's here) as a law professor, you already realize that many people sliming you simply don't have anything else...they've made careers and staked their private and public identities on gender theory, Lefty causes, absolute egalitarianism, the union gravy train etc.

They keep getting voted down there in WI, and they are obviously not happy about it.

Perhaps you can't law teach them all, but it's interesting to watch you try.

AFG has made me realize that, sans credentials, nobody will give a damn about a word I write, snark or serious. I had thought that a discussion thread on a blog was a way for everyone, credentialed or not, to debate freely. Apparently I was wrong. Without credentials, is there any point?

IF you could show a subscription to the Utne Reader or the Village Voice you’d be more believable.

Lueders was on the CBS news last night (Channel 3) talking about his breaking of the story, and when asked about his sources and if they actually said that this is what happened, Lueders said no, that the sources only stated that this allegedly happened.

Stick to it, Ann, because yours is the only reporting that IS actually true journalism.

Professor Althouse's defense works with us, because we are (mostly) interested in facts, and history, and reasoned conclusions.

But Emily Mills's goal is radically different. She don't need no steenkin' facts and reasoning - she's preserving a Narrative which is designed to penetrate and fix public consciousness by any means necessary. Hers are Alinsky tactics.

While we're following and examining posts which explore the weakly-sourced events, and posts like this one making reasoned defenses of logic to date, Emily Mill's eruption has gone three times around the world and scored big gains with the hothead leftist crowd it's specifically designed for. They now have 'support' for dismissing out of hand the inquiries and reasoning and conclusions of Ms. Althouse. Emily says so - that's good enough for the 'by any means necessary' politics being practiced in Wisconsin.

AFG said:"Why does Ann always think people should take anything Meade says seriously. He is a commenter on a blog. Are people supposed to automatically give him credibility because he is intelligent and writes a lot of comments on Ann's blog? He doesn't seem to have the credentials to be given any special attention."

It must be very satisfying to get slimed like this. It shows you have juice. You're like Palin without the rifle. Being hated can me very lucrative if it's the right people, but be aware that your uterus is now suspect and under surveillance.

OK, Scottm, if you are telling the truth, the March 2011 Issue of the Utne Reader does it say that “Cuba’s Health Care System is a Model For the Rest of the World” or “Cuba’s Health Care System is a Vision For the Rest of the World”? Also, did Republicans get called “reactionaries” or “Reactionary Thugs, of Running Dog Monopoly Capitalists.”?

I myself am reminded of the Rathergate controversy. Anybody with any objectivity could predict accurately that such blatantly false and crappy hit-piece journalism was going nowhere. In that case, it was because of the absurd font.

In this case, it is because the witnesses to the event are judges who, in all likelihood, saw two complete assholes (Prosser and the other judge) acting like the complete assholes they are. And their consciences aren't going to allow them to construct an elaborate lie about it.

This whole thing is the most amazing tempest in a teapot in the history of teapots. Nothing's going to come of it.

The left is dominated by sub-intellectual bigots who lack the ability to think their way out of the problems they create for themselves. So they must resort to lies innuendo and violence...it's all they have left...

Gezz, Garage, Loo-der's piece was a hit piece because he didn't even get the seating in the room right.

Loo-der said there had been a meeting called in Bradley's office: LIE!

Abrhamason was hiding out in Bradley's office. It was 5:30 PM. And, 4 justices, including Prosser were wondering where their chief was. Since they were told she had not, as yet, left the building.

So, the four justices went door to door. Looking. Loo-der didn't even know the facts! He just reported the "claim" ... now proven untrue ... that out of nowhere Prosser hissed "a bitch." Causing Bradley to just spring up. And, her head extended far enough across the room ... that it must have been bug eyed. (She was also hitting the air with raised arms and swinging fist.)

Prosser has witnesses who said there never was a choke hold.

And, worse for the crew who are investigating this ... Bradley couldn't achieve consensus among her colleagues. "Miss Congeniality" flew out the window.

Is Miss Congeniality dead, yet?

Was it suicide or homocide?

And, didn't Bradley do it?

Why in heaven's name did Abrahamson go and call in the press?

Will she be impeached for having lied to her colleagues?

How did her colleagues ever get to think there was a publication date decided on for their JOINT opinion?

For evidence, we know that Abrahamson didn't like what had happened in terms of outcome. Her side was in the minority.

Is this typical behaviors for chief justices? We've got 50 states. We've also got a Federal judicial system. Plus, law is a credential you can earn by going to school.

Can Abrhamason point to a role model she's been following?

If Abrahamson can prove her behaviors are typical, I'd love to hear other judges coming out and saying so! I'll even take Kagan and Sotomayor. I ain't fussy.

Professor, the professorial stance does not work here. You do come across as supporting Prosser generally. You've been quite fair in the Chokegate matter, but your distaste for the other side is plain for all to see.

I'm trying to understand where you're going with this big argument. Do you want to push the political world toward more even-handedness? That'd be nice, but it ain't gonna happen. If I were you, I'd ignore silly stuff like Mills's article.

Irene -- Isn't that far superior than relying on a few gatekeepers who decide what will be presented? Also, what you describe has always been the case. It's just that there are so many more voices now, and so much more criticism and fact-checking, that it's impossible to dress up such presentation as objectivity.

The truth comes out better, I argue, in this cacophony. (And the whole of judicial system works the same basic way.) Sit back and enjoy the fireworks.

Why does Ann always think people should take anything Meade says seriously. He is a commenter on a blog. Are people supposed to automatically give him credibility because he is intelligent and writes a lot of comments on Ann's blog? He doesn't seem to have the credentials to be given any special attention.

AFG-

If your comment were intelligent, like Meade's, I might treat it seriously despite your lack of credentials.

They make us memorize each article under the lash so, "vision" and "reactionary thugs of running dog monopoly capitalists" although that's a trick question because you didn't include "bourgeoisie" in front of "running". I remember my lessons well, comrade.

OK, you’re right Garage…Prosser “leaked” his too. Of course he wouldn’t have had to say ANYTHING, but Abramson and Bradley decided to leak and smear….if they’d kept their mouths shut, they wouldn’t look like Knuckleheads and the WI Court would look a whole lot better.

But, of course, in Garage World, the “proper thing” for Prosser to do was to let himself be publicly smeared…and by proper we mean that which advances the Left’s Narrative and Cause.

I witnessed some slug of a reporter from some Madison outlet (can't remember which) on CNN yesterday speaking on this subj. He was almost totally incoherent. Not ONLY was he minimally informed of the details then in the public domain at the time--AT BEST--but he seemed to have some speech impediment or was a mongoloid idiot from birth. The dullard struggled to even pronounce words--let alone words in a grammatically correct sentence--let alone a sentence that could be parsed for conceptual clarity. Long story short: the guy was almost TOTALLY incoherent, let alone capable of imparting insight or knowledge. THIS is the journalistic face that Madison presents to the world, I thought? "Laughingstock" does not EVEN begin to apply...

Are we seriously arguing about credentials now? Please list some properly credentialed people who can be listened to.

1) Anyone from the Isthmus, of course2) Anyone from Media Matters3) Anyone form the Wisconsin Centre for Investigative Journalism4) Anyone with a degree in Feminist Studies/Womyn’s Studies5) Justice Bradley.

Heh, in 1L profs teach lawyers are "social engineers" not, as common sense tells us, a "social disease"--Ann/Meade--as you seek political asylum North of Hwy 8 just say, "Frank sent you" and you will be issued your basic survival gear: 22 cal rifle to cling to and your Bible. Maybe there is some efficacy to the 19th Amendment after all. Welcome!!

"You never answered the question why you feel Leuder's story is a "hit piece", but not the "alternate version" of Bradley attacking Prosser, that was conveniently leaked to the media."

I sure did. It's because he published without probing into the obvious issues that would have produced the alternate story that the Journal Sentinel was able to come up with in less than a day. He didn't ask the normal questions that a journalist should ask and ran with the story that hurt a person he was ideologically opposed to.

"I heard from my friend's cousin's half-sister's lesbian girlfriend who once delivered a pizza to capitol protestors that she heard that David Prosser assaults puppies and kittens by putting his hand behind their ears and moving his fingers in a way that causes them to writhe uncontrollably."

This is something I've been struggling with. A law professor named Cass Sunstein wrote a prescient book predicting that we would see much more stratification of opinion because of the Internet.

At times, I think he's right and it saddens me because I strongly disagreed previously. At other times, I call bullshit and say that it's just old people talking. Nostalgia is a powerful force. People always remember the past as being a more unified place, when it just wasn't. Take Reagan, for example. Everybody didn't love him. Or take World War II. Everybody wasn't for it. Or take the Civil War. It did tend to cause friction.

Nostalgia is a powerful force. People always remember the past as being a more unified place, when it just wasn't. Take Reagan, for example. Everybody didn't love him. Or take World War II. Everybody wasn't for it. Or take the Civil War. It did tend to cause friction.

Spot-On…after the fact, we tend to remember the Conventional Wisdom of the era…example the number of people who SAY they went to Woodstock, versus the ACTUAL attendance.

I am with Irene, to an extent. In law, there is a split between counseling a client and advocating for a client. In the counseling mode, you have to take a giant step back and try to be as objective as possible ("How strong is your case?", "What is the likelihood of success on such-and-such a claim.") You also check your analysis with others to try to weed out the effects of remaining bias and anything you might have overlooked.

I had believed for a long time, that the "counseling" role was similar to the role of a scholar -- or an objective reporter.

The role of "advocate" is entirely different. There, you present your client's case in the best possible light, and paint your opponent in the darkest light (bounded by the Rules of Professional Conduct).

What Irene is seeing, and what I am dismayed at, is academics and journalists adopting the "advocate" role in place of the "counselor" role -- without any binding rules of conduct. It may be true that some individuals have always acted that way, but there were some institutional constraints imposed previously that have gone out the window today.

I just reread a really awesome book called Perjury, about the Alger Hiss-Whittaker Chambers brouhaha. Great, very evenhanded book. I highly recommend it. (There's the original as well as an updated version.)

Anyway, it dovetails nicely with the strange fascination among leftists about post-war America and how allegedly unified it all was. Utter, total bullshit. Anyone who thinks so would or should be disabused by reading Perjury.

garage mahal said...You never answered the question why you feel Leuder's story is a "hit piece", but not the "alternate version" of Bradley attacking Prosser, that was conveniently leaked to the media

garage, check this out:

galdosiana said...Lueders was on the CBS news last night (Channel 3) talking about his breaking of the story, and when asked about his sources and if they actually said that this is what happened, Lueders said no, that the sources only stated that this allegedly happened.

I am all for the throwing away of objectivity. I'm no relativist; I believe in truth and objectivity and all that. But I also don't believe that anyone who is writing or saying anything doesn't have a point of view, a narrative, and a set of assumptions.

I say get it all out there. Speak! Speak! Opinions are like evidence. The more that get out there, the more likely we are to arrive at a proper and right conclusion.

I'm a law professor blogger, probing with questions about neutral principles, the actual facts, and political interests.

Why would you be so careless?

I'm not a political ideologue. I don't even care that much about politics. I care about truth and the ability of human beings to reason and to interact with each other.

Do you really mean all that? Surely you appreciate that while you may ask lawyerly questions about the Prosser/Bradley conflict, this blog is much more about the comments a post generates. Surely you understand that you're judged by the company you keep.

Ms. Mills apparently has chosen to preach to an Amen choir. You, OTOH,do at times post things that might disturb strict right wing sensibilities BUT the outcome is similar.

Id she is, isn't Blogger and its owner (Google, I believe) even more responsible? And isn't the United States, where Google and Althouse and virtually all commenters are located -- isn't this country ultimately responsible?

Well, Phil, you can say what you want about this commentariat. But I'm not going to sit here and listen you badmouth the United States of America! Gentlemen!

sixty grit, I disagree slightly about a .22. You can stock up lots of ammo cheap and you can kill lot of food with one if things get tough. Hell, you can even kill a deer with a .22 if you aim for its head.

Hitmen also often use .22s because the bullet will bounce around inside the skull (granted you have to be close).

And they are a great rifle and pistol for the wife and kids to shoot. My wife digs her Buckmark. My son loves his Wildcat.

Then again it is also a good idea to have (at a minimum) a 12 g shotgun, a 30-06rifle, a .300 Winchester rifle, and an M1911 .45. Just sayin.

By the process of elimination, it's a good guess to say that Abrahamson "released" her version of the story into the media.

It couldn't have been the janitor! Loo-der wouldn't have taken his call. And, if the janitor appeared in person, he would have said "clean here, later."

Why did Abrahamson go public, might be one of the best unanswered questions, yet.

She had LIED to her colleagues. She was hiding out in friendly territory, in Bradley's office ... When lo and behold ... the 4 other justices found them. The crook went home.

We also know that Bradley tried to "push" some sort of Dr. Phil moment on Prosser, the Wedensday, following this Monday "discovery" of the lying and hiding Abrhamson.

She probably thought she had a good plan!

Prosser, she figured, would be forced to resign. Or, at worst, would be disbarred before August 1st rolls around.

Who swears in justices?

What if, ahead, in a fit of fancy, all Abrahamson can find to hold up is the Yellow Pages?

Then, the "choke hold" story would bloom, again.

And, gullible reporters would buy it.

May I suggest they begin their next attack with "It's a dark and stormy night" ...

It's a familiar opening line. And, you could fit "choke hold" right in there.

By the way, Prosser won't be resigning.

And, another law professor, Jacobson, is predicting one, and maybe even two, of these dingbats will have to go.

I'm betting Abrahamson is now getting plenty of heat. This is what happens when "reverse phone calls" take place ... And, there must be some phone calls, dear old crazy shirley, cannot avoid answering.

Okay. Maybe, when she answers her phone, she puts her fingers on her nose, and says: "Shirley's not here. Can I take a message?"

Meanwhile, I extend my condolences to dear crazy shirley on her lost dignity. She didn't have to lose her dignity. But it got pulled off. Sort of unmasking her for the incompetent she is.

While on the cocktail circuit, the thin ladies murmer insults at Ann Althouse. They resesrve even more bitterness toward Meade.

These are just lessons in bitches being jealous. Pay them no never mind.

It's good that Emily Post is dead. When she went so did the parade of hats and white gloves ... where women couldn't leave home without them.

What a bunch of frivolous dunces. Did they really think their attacks would fly?

Were they, instead, hoping, it would go unnoticed? Like a fart that doesn't produce noise?

I understand that not everyone should be judged purely on their credentials, but as a general rule priority has to be given to people who have consistently proved that they know what they are talking about. Going back to Ann's post about Robert Farley not replying to Meade's point-by-point refutation of his whatever he was criticizing at the time, it seems pretty easy to look at Meade's comments and say "who is this guy, and why should I care what he has to say?" Especially considering the other countless commenters who expect their stuff to be read and responded to. All these replies are really beefing up my commenter portfolio! Thanks

Speaking of smallish weapons, today I expect to receive an honest-to-God slingshot in the mail. For real, I'll be a 40-year old man with a "Dennis the Menace" toy. I ordered it for my nephews to use when they visit in a couple weeks. We're taking a hike/exploration trip on some land whose owner I know, and I want to spice things up for them. Of course I will be required to "test" it many times before they get here.

Direct quote from the Lueders interview: "Well, what our sources reported was that there was an allegation." Re-reading the original story now, I can see how artfully it was written to give the impression that the sources had first-hand information, without actually coming out and making that false claim. (Video available here; clip is titled "Bill Lueders Talks About Reporting On Supreme Court Incident".)

I read Emily's post as projection -- she accuses you of what she herself is guilty of. I see more and more projection from the liberal side of U.S. politics. I can't tell you if it's laziness or malign intent, but there certainly is more, especially from this White House. F

It's because he published without probing into the obvious issues that would have produced the alternate story that the Journal Sentinel was able to come up with in less than a day. He didn't ask the normal questions that a journalist should ask and ran with the story that hurt a person he was ideologically opposed to.

The only person on record, Bradley, supports Leuder's story. We have no idea who the sources are the MJS reported, and you still will not apply that same scrutiny to them.

What Going back to Ann's post about Robert Farley not replying to Meade's point-by-point refutation of his whatever he was criticizing at the time, it seems pretty easy to look at Meade's comments and say "who is this guy, and why should I care what he has to say?"

H’hhmmmmmmmmmmmmmm OK,

… not replying to AFG’s point-by-point refutation of his whatever he was criticizing at the time, it seems pretty easy to look at AFG’s comments and say "who is this guy, and why should I care what he has to say?"So there you go…UNTIL AFG presents some form of credentials I see no need to respond to him.

The reason that such poor journalism is so widespread today is simply the low bar we have now, the ease, the ubiquity. Hell, even I'm writing stuff thousands will see. That's brand new, and demands that we be more discerning.

People used to laugh when you said your source was that you "read it on the internet".

Today, that where all information comes from, but it's still just people writing stuff out of their heads.

In the past, you had to learn to write, get hired, perform well, move past others at your institution through merit and competition.

Now you just write a lot, and most writers get their readers by being provocative, period.

Because this is a tempest in a teapot that is immensely embarrassing to the Wisconsin Supreme Court and, in going public, they would further destroy a sense of collegiality that is obviously already in tatters.

Hmmm, I don't know if I've been banned/blocked. I posted a comment at "Isthmus" that stayed up for a little while (it was sardonic and critical, but not "hateful" or "abusive") and now seems to be gone. Anyone see a comment by me around the Meade/"Jeremy" discussion? I had the 13th comment when it was up there.

There is a great quote from the movie “Broadcast News” circa 1987 that speaks to what has happened to the mainstream media.

“What do you think the Devil is going to look like if he's around? Nobody is going to be taken in if he has a long, red, pointy tail. No. I'm semi-serious here. He will look attractive and he will be nice and helpful and he will get a job where he influences a great God-fearing nation and he will never do an evil thing... he will just bit by little bit lower standards where they are important. Just coax along flash over substance... Just a tiny bit. And he will talk about all of us really being salesmen. And he'll get all the great women.”

I read the Althouse blog because Ann does a bang-up job of linking to a variety of sources. She asks us thoughtful questions and also challenges us, as citizens of the world to ask questions, to probe, to consider and to investigate.

I tell my son (age 15) that reading the news takes work. It takes time. One must investigate many sources before drawing a conclusion. We have become a society of the “quick read”. We want all the facts in quick bullet points of 10 words or less. Gathering the facts takes more time. Time is a precious commodity and many do not want to invest.

This Isthmus author is coaxing along flash over substance. And bit by bit eroding our standards for what passes for thoughtful, investigate journalism or commentary.

Because this is a tempest in a teapot that is immensely embarrassing to the Wisconsin Supreme Court and, in going public, they would further destroy a sense of collegiality that is obviously already in tatters.

As to my commenters, what they say about me is that I encourage free speech and debate. They also say something about the left and the right. Why don't more lefties stick around in here and talk? It seems to me that they can't take it and don't like to be challenged so much. Many of my posts take liberal positions. I don't push candidates in elections, though sometimes I explain a vote, like when I said I was voting for Obama.

One of the stupidest aspects of Emily Mills's post is that she calls me a Prosser supporter, but I never even promoted Prosser when he was running for reelection. I wrote about the campaign, but I didn't recommend Prosser. That's pretty damned even-handed of me. But do I get any credit for that? Does Mills even know that?

Apparently, I'm just somebody she's heard about from other people. I'm toxic because I seem right-wing. Better not read me or even regard me as a human being!

There is a great quote from the movie “Broadcast News” circa 1987 that speaks to what has happened to the mainstream media.

“What do you think the Devil is going to look like if he's around? Nobody is going to be taken in if he has a long, red, pointy tail. No. I'm semi-serious here. He will look attractive and he will be nice and helpful and he will get a job where he influences a great God-fearing nation and he will never do an evil thing... he will just bit by little bit lower standards where they are important. Just coax along flash over substance... Just a tiny bit. And he will talk about all of us really being salesmen. And he'll get all the great women.”

I read the Althouse blog because Ann does a bang-up job of linking to a variety of sources. She asks us thoughtful questions and also challenges us, as citizens of the world to ask questions, to probe, to consider and to investigate.

I tell my son (age 15) that reading the news takes work. It takes time. One must investigate many sources before drawing a conclusion. We have become a society of the “quick read”. We want all the facts in quick bullet points of 10 words or less. Gathering the facts takes more time. Time is a precious commodity and many do not want to invest.

This Isthmus author is coaxing along flash over substance. And bit by bit eroding our standards for what passes for thoughtful, investigate journalism or commentary.

30 years in business, thousands of meetings, often very heated discussions that sometimes decided the economic fate of many people. but I never saw anyone get physical like this. Not even get out of a chair.

It's pretty sad that people in this particular position would act like this. These people are deciding how the rest of us should be allowed to act. It's just embarrassing. The best our universities can produce. If these people had worked in business (non-professional) part of their career, they would be better people, better judges and better examples.

"Our sources were people who we considered to be reliable, given that there was a small pool of people who were witnesses and are covenant[?] to the sources, that we would protect their identity, I can't say more. But at some point the sourcing of this isn't all that important any more since the Justice who, one of the principals in this case, Justice Bradley, has come forward publicly and given her account of things, which is that Justice Prosser came toward her in anger and put his hands around her neck in a chokehold."

As godd as an admission that the truth doesn't matter to this guy; the important thing was getting the accusation out there. At this point I vote for "evil".

Why? Do these judges sound like reasonable, likable people to you? I am genuinely curious. Please do elaborate.

Bradley or Abrahamson (sp?)? No.

Prosser? Yes. Prosser got physically attacked for stating an opinion, defended himself, and left it at that. Bradley and A tried to turn Bradley's bad behavior into a crime by Prosser, at which point he defended himself. Nothing at all wrong with that.

Think seven machos has it right. It is axiomatic to say that judges are supposed to act in a judicious manner. I think all three judges--and, yes, including Prosser--have behaved poorly. No one is a criminal, but they are not behaving like judges....I would not characterize Leuders as an investigative reporter either. As judges are supposed to be judicious, investigative reporters are supposed to investigate. His reporting leaves more questions unanswered and begged than it reveals.....I give Althouse credit for the above piece. Law professors are supposed to be dispassionate and analytical. The above piece sounds analytical and dispassionate. She has not diminished her profession by writing it, nor have the judges nor Leuder done anything to increase the reputation of their professions.......I enjoy this scandal immensely. It's like Jersey Shore for thinking people. My only real criticism is that it lacks sex. Perhaps some journalist can turn up evidence of a past love affair between Bradley and Prosser than involved SM role playing. That would explain a lot.

Lefties posting about "chokeholds" is about as entertaining as lefties posting on economics or guns. They are so completely out of touch, so insanely absent from the real world. Amazing. Should the good justice be administered a "chokehold" she would revise the description of the alleged attack. It makes her charge ridiculous on its face. Rather like the press alleging the use of "assault weapons" when pump shotguns are what they are referring to. Hyperbole has its uses but not here.

In the meantime, to all of Ann's would-be defenders who've come rushing overe here: I think Ann is perfectly capable of and has done enough to respond to this on her own blog, but thanks for the traffic.

Laurence - It was nice to meet you in person the other day. I doubt very much that you'll love all of what I have to say in tomorrow's post, but I do hope you'll come back, regardless. There may be some middle ground yet."

I too have never seen a physical altercation in a business setting though I have certainly witnessed many tense and loud shouting matches and storming about and paper throwing. I did once observe a man on the phone in an airport, back when we used land lines, near a gate. The airline guy closed the door to the gate and my guy hung up the phone and dashed to the gate and tried to open the door. The airline guy said, too late, the plane has departed. The plane was clearly visible out the window and the door had been shut only a moment. My family is on that plane and I only came out for a call, my guy said. The airline man said, too bad. My guy cold cocked him, knocked him completely out. On the spot. It was a wonderful thing and I imagined for months afterwards that I was being treated better in airports.

Looks like Emily Mills needs another 24 hours to figure out a justification for what she wrote in the first place and respond accordingly. And we'll love it, she promises, and that matters more than any pesky truthiness.

Shill: In the meantime, to all of Ann's would-be defenders who've come rushing overe here: I think Ann is perfectly capable of and has done enough to respond to this on her own blog, but thanks for the traffic.

His supporters certainly thought it was worthy of an answer. And judging by all the righties coming out of the woodwork and already blaming Bradley, Madison, and Mahoney? As if any of that had anything to do with what happened in those chambers. Too funny.

AFG said... I understand that not everyone should be judged purely on their credentials, but as a general rule priority has to be given to people who have consistently proved that they know what they are talking about. ================That is not true, in some cases. Journalism is the only "profession" that requires no credentials.While some would sniff that "Of course the NY Times only takes Ivies or progressive Jews from the most laudably socialist families who prove themselves in the NY Times tradition....many other news organizations never bother.

Peter Jennings was a HS dropout.You have blonde "journalists" on air backed by nice tits and a degree in sociology from SUNY-Buffalo. Walter Chronkite was a college dropout.You have functionally illiterate ex-jock journalists. As well as NYC nerds who never played a game of baseball they were not picked last in that position themselves, never in a fight except a few they ran from in Grade school billing themselves as nationally-awarded (by other nerds) "Baseball, boxing, Olympic track" experts.

Could be that both Garage and Emily Mills are writing from fear. Fear that both Abrahamson and Bradley "Pulled a Weiner".

Meaning that both nasty old ladies thought they could slime Prosser somehow..and had the bright idea that if they were laughed off on the alleged provoker (Bradley's) suggestion that the Justice she rushed with fists clenched be "voted" into anger counseling...a little leaking to the press would sure damage the Enemy and slime him good!

The problem is both ladies may have forgotten that what doomed Weiner was not his personal life, but lying to everyone. It destroyed whatever credibility he had as a Congressman.

Mills and Garage now see this could end up with an investigation determining both nasty old bitch lady Justices lied to the media and police - and the Bar or Judicial Commission may sanction them and cost them their seats.

garage said: "Prosser has not disputed the allegation from Bradley that he put her in a chokehold."

Prosser's statement on Leuder's story: "Once there's a proper review of the matter and the facts surrounding it are made clear, the anonymous claim made to the media will be proven false. Until then I will refrain from further public comment."

I hope you're not going to make an absurd argument that somehow there is any doubt as to what anonymous claim Prosser was disputing, just because he didn't actually use the word "chokehold".

I hope you're not going to make an absurd argument that somehow there is any doubt as to what anonymous claim Prosser was disputing, just because he didn't actually use the word "chokehold".

You’ll note he didn’t deny his anger management issues or his unwillingness to attend Anger Management Counseling. He didn’t deny provoking or INTENDING to choke either. Lastly, he did NOT deny beating his wife.

I believe this “statement” and what it elides demonstrates all we need to know about Justice Prosser.

Mills and Garage now see this could end up with an investigation determining both nasty old bitch lady Justices lied to the media and police - and the Bar or Judicial Commission may sanction them and cost them their seats.

I doubt Bradley would run to the media if she charged him with her fists raised. I don't have a lot of confidence in the witnesses though - Prosser would be the 3rd consecutive conservative justice under investigation by the WJC. All three serving currently on the court. Not sure what's up with Wisconsin Republicans, they are the biggest lying assholes in the country.

I doubt Bradley would run to the media if she charged him with her fists raised… Not sure what's up with Wisconsin Republicans, they are the biggest lying assholes in the country.

Just like Weiner, eh, Garage? Why would anyone lie about that, to so many people? I think you have the wrong party or philosophy on the “lying” part Garage, I know it hurts, but it’s looking more and more like YOUR side spends a whole lot of time avoiding the truth.

But it’s become part of the reason we relish your postings, watching them turn to Wormwood and Gall in your mouth.

Looks like Emily Mills needs another 24 hours to figure out a justification for what she wrote in the first place and respond accordingly. And we'll love it, she promises, and that matters more than any pesky truthiness.

Wasn't it Lenin who said that "The biggest fool of all is the revolutionary who believes his own propaganda"?